Effective Physician Assistance for Drug Treatment Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission Act of 2006 with Senator Collins because the people of the Northern Forest region have not shared in the economic prosperity of many parts of the rest of the United States. The bill establishes a Federal-State partnership commission for the purpose of promoting economic development in the communities in the northern forest area of Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont through the development of public policy tools and grants designed to build local capacity.

The legislation calls for a collaborative regional effort to achieve real progress to enhance not only the forest products industry to preserve the traditional industries of the region, but to catalyze new rural economic and small development and job growth, and slow out- migration.

Today, small businesses are fueling the economic growth of the Nation, producing over 50 percent of the gross domestic product and creating three-fourths of all new jobs. Entrepreneurship is a critical element in the establishment of self-sustaining communities that create jobs and contribute broadly to economic and community development. The bill authorizes appropriations of $40 million for economic development grants for fiscal years 2008-2012 that will support existing entrepreneur and small business development programs and projects and support projects for small business innovation research. Funding will also assist the region in obtaining job training, employment-related education and business development and assist in community development. Assistance will be provided to severely distressed and underdeveloped while maintaining the integrity of the region's resources.

Many residents of the Northeast region live below the poverty level, in areas of significantly higher than average unemployment rates, with limited access to capital, and with low per capita personal income. Maine's economy has long been based on the bounty of its natural resources--fishing, farming, forestry, and tourism. The very nature of these industries has meant that a significant portion of employment opportunities are seasonal and overall earnings lag behind national averages. Currently, Maine leads the country with the fastest growing poverty rate, tied with Arkansas and Mississippi. As a matter of fact, in 2005, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Maine was the only State other than Louisiana that experienced a decline in economic activity. The entire northern forest region shares many of these common challenges, and as a result, local and State economic development leaders have been receptive to considering other means to create jobs.

Currently, there are several independent entities focused on regional economic development, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Denali Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority. However, there is currently no single regional economic development entity focused on the needs of the far Northeast region. Our Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission is expected to complement existing efforts, and I plan to pursue these efforts in the 2007 Farm bill.

The Appalachian Regional Commission--ARC--developed in 1965 has proven to be a success and has help transform a region once solely dependent on mining, agriculture and heavy industry to one more reliant on the service and retail industries. Since its creation, the ARC has reduced the number of distressed counties from 219 to 100. It has cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent and has helped 1,400 businesses create 26,000 new jobs since 1977. This is the type of assistance that could also be very effective in Northern Appalachian area.

I look forward to fostering the rich potential of the northern forest States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York, with its abundance of natural resources and entrepreneurship, and hard working people through the Northern Appalachian Economic Development Commission to obtain vigorous self-sustaining growth throughout the region.

Mr. President, among the most consequential tasks Congress will undertake in the coming months is a potentially epoch-defining review of U.S. trade policy occasioned by the looming expiry of numerous trade preference programs, ``fast-track'' Trade Promotion Authority and the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations. The fate of recent trade legislation, mirroring growing acrimony in the public debate over trade policy, portends that Congress will not simply be considering whether to reauthorize certain programs and processes affecting international trade--it will be setting forth a doctrine declaring America's position and powers in an irreversibly interdependent global economy.

The complexity of the market forces that can bring both hope and hardship under the modern trade regime mean that few other issues cut across traditionally drawn party, geographic and ideological lines so dramatically. Where the usual political dichotomies don't apply, new ones have been framed to polarize the issue: free-trade versus fair- trade, globalization versus protectionism, growth versus sustainability.

Yet above this fray of competing economic theories and realities, a solid consensus has grown around the principle that whatever our trade laws may be, they should be consistently and vigorously enforced.

The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade agreement, as there is considerable institutional momentum among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the administration against bringing formal enforcement action against certain trade partners, and China in particular.

USTR's handling of the trade effects of China's currency manipulation practices is representative of the problem. In September 2004, a U.S. industry coalition filed a petition under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974--the statute setting forth general procedures for the enforcement of U.S. trade rights--alleging that Chinese currency manipulation practices constituted a violation of China's obligations to the United States under World Trade Organization rules, and calling for USTR to conduct an investigation of such practices. USTR rejected the petition on the day it was filed, contending that ``an investigation would not be effective in addressing the acts, policies, and practices covered in the petition. The administration is currently involved in efforts to address with the Government of China the currency valuation issues raised in the petition. The USTR believes that initiation of an investigation under--the section 301 process-- would hamper, rather than advance, administration efforts to address Chinese currency valuation policies.'' Shortly thereafter, in November of 2004, a congressional coalition of 12 Senators and 23 Representatives filed a similar section 301 petition, which was rejected by USTR on the same grounds.

As noted in USTR's rejection of these petitions, current law allows the Executive to decline to initiate an industry-requested investigation where it determines that action under section 301 would be ineffective in addressing the offending act, policy or practice. The merits of USTR's determination are unreviewable under current law. USTR used this loophole to avoid having to even investigate industry's claim, let alone take formal action against China. And as we now know, the administration's ``soft'' approach to Chinese currency manipulation has itself proven ineffective in addressing the problem in the 2 years since these filings.

It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign trade practices that I today introduce the Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, or the ``Trade CLAIM Act''.

The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the section 301 process to require the U.S. Trade Representative to act upon an interested party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end to ameliorate the effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States.

The bill would also grant the Court of International Trade jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of section 301 industry petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights.

The Trade CLAIM Act would give U.S. businesses and workers a greater say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. The bill would be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like other petitioners in section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide section 301 actions initiated by USTR.

By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic pressures. In delinking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial machinations of international relations, this act would end the sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and leave it to the free market--uniformly operating under the trade rules to which our trading partners have already agreed--to decide their fate.

America's prosperity is due in no small part to its excellence in assuring the rule of law. It is fundamental to the success of worthy enterprises in a functioning market that the government--rather than choosing winners and losers--consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that bind all actors. It is the extension of this foundational principle of the American economic tradition to the international trade regime that the Trade CLAIM Act seeks to accomplish--and which America's businesses and workers have long been promised.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Smith, Baucus, Feingold, Johnson, Salazar, Wyden, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, and Cantwell in introducing and passing a bill to amend the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes and U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.

The amendments that this bill makes to section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would make U.S. territories and Indian tribes eligible to receive grants from the Department of Justice to address the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale, and manufacture. The terrible business of methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture has impacted communities all over the country, in urban and nonurban areas alike, and our territories and Indian reservations have not been spared. This bill will make much needed resources available to territorial and tribal governments to help bring the methamphetamine epidemic under control. However, I understand there are some questions about the intent of this bill in respect to a provision in this bill.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct in his understanding of this provision.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct in his understanding of this provision as well.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this critically needed legislation.

Mr. President, I am joined today by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Smith, Baucus, Feingold, Johnson, Salazar, Wyden, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein, and Cantwell in introducing this bill to amend the Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that Indian tribes and U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.

The amendments that this bill makes to section 2996(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would make U.S. territories and Indian tribes eligible to receive grants from the Department of Justice to address the scourge of methamphetamine use, sale, and manufacture. The terrible business of methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture has impacted communities all over the country, in urban and nonurban areas alike, and our territories and Indian reservations have not been spared. This bill will make much- needed resources available to territorial and tribal governments to help bring the methamphetamine epidemic under control.

Mr. President, the impacts of methamphetamine use on communities across the Nation are well known and cannot be underestimated. We have worked hard with Senator Bingaman and his staff to craft legislation that makes these critical resources for fighting methamphetamine use, distribution, and manufacture available to sectors on which this drug is having a devastating impact. I would also like to thank Senator Sessions for the long hours he and his staff have devoted to working with my staff and other offices interested in this bill to make this a good bill that this body can and should support.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of this critically needed legislation.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2006. I am proud to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Enzi and Murkowski. This bill reflects the work of three committees of jurisdiction and countless meetings with the administration over the past four Congresses. Nevertheless, I must express my profound disappointment in seeing yet another Congress go by without passage of this critical reauthorization.

Thirty years ago, Congress first enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to meet the moral commitment and trust obligation of the United States to provide comprehensive health care to Indian people. The act was last reauthorized in 1992, and efforts on the latest reauthorization have been ongoing since the 106th Congress. Over the course of nearly 7 years and four Congresses, the Committee on Indian Affairs, along with the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the Indian tribes, has labored to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I have been encouraged by the recent discussions with the administration on the reauthorization, however, we were simply left without sufficient time to achieve final passage.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is the fundamental statutory framework for the Indian health care system and governs nearly every aspect of Indian health care. The Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Dorgan, and I introduced the predecessor bill, S.1057, over 1 year ago to build upon that framework by updating the delivery of health services to be consistent with currently accepted health policy and practices everywhere in our great nation except Indian Country. This new iteration of the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act contained critically needed improvements including increased access to care, alternative financing for health care facilities and services, integrated programs for behavioral health, and progressive recruitment and retention programs for health professionals serving Indian communities.

Extensive work went into crafting these bills. Six years ago, a steering committee of Indian tribal leaders, after extensive consultation with the Indian Health Service, developed a broad consensus about the needed improvements to the Indian health care system. Bills based on this steering committee's recommendations have been introduced in the Senate since the 106th Congress, but none have been enacted.

In October, 2005, the Committee on Indian Affairs favorably reported out S. 1057. As with many bills, aspects of S. 1057 fell under the jurisdiction of other committees, and in years past, this appears to have complicated and delayed consideration. However, in the 109th Congress S.1057 was reviewed and debated by the Senate Committees on Indian Affairs, Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We worked closely with those committees to advance and improve upon the reauthorization legislation.

In July, 2005, the HELP Committee reached out to us and we held a joint hearing on S.1057. The HELP Committee worked diligently with us to improve upon and advance that bill. In addition, despite last minute delays by the Department of Health and Human Services, on June 8, 2006, the Finance Committee unanimously reported the amendments to the Social Security Act that were needed to effectively implement S. 1057.

However, when we sought consideration of the bill on the floor, additional concerns were raised about the bill, even after it had been considered by the committees of jurisdiction and after years of discussion with the administration. These concerns prevented the Senate from considering S.1057 prior to its recess on September 29, 2006.

I have not been averse to a constructive dialogue aimed at improving the measure introduced, but I am deeply concerned about the repeated delays in passing this legislation and the seemingly unending series of obstacles thrown in the way of getting this business done. The committee has held at least nine hearings on the reauthorization since the 106th Congress, conducted extensive negotiations with the administration, and provided ample opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue from all interested parties. We have demonstrated our willingness to accommodate any reasonable concerns, even when raised belatedly as they so often have been, without compromising congressional oversight, and the quality, accessibility and flexibility for the Indian health programs deserved by Indian people. Nevertheless, we could not reach a final resolution to some provisions which would in our view have regressed from current law and good health policy.

Therefore, Senator Enzi and I decided to introduce this bill, which reflects the reasonable compromises we have agreed to with the administration. Specifically, to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, this bill protects the United States from unnecessary lawsuits, while at the same time insuring that Indian patients receiving health care in IHS or tribal facilities, or in home- or community-based settings, will have the quality of care they deserve.

I believe that it is extremely important to remember, when looking at this bill, that improving, rather than regressing from, current law and policy is particularly important in light of studies which drive home the desperate need for improving the Indian health care system. For example, a Government Accountability Office report issued in August, 2005 documented the lower life expectancies and substantially higher disease rates among Indians, and found that health care services were not always available for Indian people. The GAO further reported that the treatment delays or service gaps could exacerbate the severity of Indian patients' conditions and create a need for more intensive treatment.

These findings should concern Congress. We retain the ultimate authority

and responsibility to deal with Indian tribes and provide oversight of the Federal agencies which discharge the responsibilities outlined in our laws. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that the Indian health care system is updated to accommodate practices that have become a part of the mainstream health care industry.

This concern and commitment was evident in the work of many Members of the Senate. We are very pleased that Senator Murkowski has joined us in the introduction of this bill. I want to thank Senators Enzi, Grassley, Baucus, and Kennedy, for their efforts and that of their staff on this legislation. I was proud to advance a bill which reflected the bipartisan work of the multiple committees of jurisdiction. During this Congress, we were joined in pushing toward passage by other Senators and I want to thank, in particular, Senators Burns, Crapo, Bingaman, and Senator Domenici, who has long supported Indian health and has been instrumental in advancing the bill. Finally, I express special thanks to Senator Dorgan and his staff for their unwavering support and unstinted efforts on the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

At the end of this Congress I relinquish the chair of the committee knowing that there is much work to do for Indian health. However, I am confident that Senator Dorgan will continue these efforts, and I look forward to working with him on these and other Indian issues. I ask consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the REAL ID Act of 2005.

The REAL ID Act became law over a year and a half ago, but opposition remains strong and vocal. I hold in my hand a list of hundreds of organizations--ranging from the National Governor's Association--NGA-- to the American Civil Liberties Union--ACLU--to the National Rifle Association--that believe the REAL ID Act was a grave mistake. None of these groups were heard by Congress before the bill was passed in May 2005. There were no hearings to understand the repercussions of such sweeping legislation; and no debate on the floor of the Senate.

Rather, the REAL ID Act was attached to a must-pass piece of legislation, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act--Public Law 109-13, in conference and therefore received virtually no scrutiny before passage. Every Member of Congress who supported providing much needed funding to our troops and relief to the Indonesia tsunami victims was forced to vote in favor of the REAL ID Act, an unrelated bill.

That is why I come to the floor today to spark a real debate on REAL ID. I say to my colleagues there are serious problems with REAL ID and it's time Congress took a closer look.

My two primary concerns with REAL ID are that the law: places an unrealistic and unfunded burden on state governments; and erodes Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights.

There is nothing realistic about REAL ID. This law mandates that State-issued IDs, such as driver's licenses, comply with certain security standards and procedures, as determined by the Department of Homeland Security--DHS--in order to be accepted by the Federal Government for such purposes as boarding an airplane or entering a Federal building. These procedures include electronically verifying the authenticity of each identifying document, such as birth certificates, passports, and social security cards, presented to a local Department of Motor Vehicles--DMV--office. Such a requirement likely will involve developing an extremely costly and complex set of electronic systems that connect the thousands of DMVs to one another and to a host of Federal agencies. This would cost $1.42 billion according to a September 2006 report issued by the NGA, the National Conference of State Legislatures--NCSL--and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators--AAMVA.

In addition, every current driver's license holder must be reenrolled under the new screening process which will more than double the workload at local DMVs across the country and far exceed their current capacity. REAL ID will put an end, at least temporarily, to online and mail license renewals and will cause huge lines and back-up at the DMV. Although security should never be sacrificed for convenience, it is important that states have the time and flexibility to implement the additional security standards in an effective manner. Moreover, reenrollment

will be the mostly costly piece of REAL ID, estimated at approximately $8 billion over 5 years by NGA, NCSL, and AAMVA.

There are a number of other requirements imposed on states by REAL ID, such as new design requirements for the ID cards and on-site security. In total, REAL ID will cost over $11 billion according to the NGA study. Congress has appropriated only $40 million for REAL ID implementation to date, and no funds were included for fiscal year 2007. That leaves a hefty pricetag for the States, especially for legislation that was passed with no review.

In addition to the cost imposed on States, REAL ID imposes an unrealistic timeframe. Under the law, states must have REAL ID compliant systems in place by May 2008. Yet implementing regulations have not been issued. DHS is expected to issue the regulations early next year. However, as of today, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has not received the draft regulations, and OMB is allowed 90 days by Executive order for review of all proposed regulations. That would give states a little over a year to develop electronic verification systems, redesign driver's license cards, establish protocols on how to handle and secure personal information, increase DMV personnel, and find a way to fund it all. It has taken DHS over a year and a half just to issue the regulations. Expecting the States to execute the new system in even less time is unrealistic.

In addition to the unrealistic burden REAL ID places on States, REAL ID is a serious threat to our privacy rights and civil liberties.

The REAL ID Act will require each State's driver's licensing agency to collect and store substantial numbers of records containing licensees' most sensitive personally identifiable information, including one's social security number, proof of residence, and biometric identifiers such as a digital photograph and signature. If the new State databases are compromised, they will provide one-stop access to virtually all information necessary to commit identity theft. Moreover, the sharing of the aggregated personally identifiable information of licensees between and amongst various government agencies and employees at the Federal, State, and local level, as contemplated by the REAL ID Act, potentially allows millions of individuals access to that information without protections or safeguards. The potential for the private sector to scan and share the information contained on a REAL ID compliant license exponentially increases the risk of identity theft as well. Despite these obvious threats to Americans' privacy, the REAL ID Act fails to mandate privacy protections for individuals' information nor does it provide States with the means to implement data security and antihacking protections that will be required to safeguard the new databases mandated by the act.

REAL ID exacerbates the threat of identity theft which threatens our security. As the Honolulu Star Bulletin noted in a October 1, 2006, editorial, the REAL ID Act gives us ``a false sense of security.''

I come to the floor today to inject some reality into REAL ID. Unfunded mandates, privacy, and security are real problems that deserve real consideration and real solutions. It is my hope that when DHS issues the REAL ID regulations, the following issues are addressed: (1) limiting access to the REAL ID networks; (2) securing data that is electronically stored on driver's licenses and ID cards; (3) allowing flexibility in the technological solutions employed by the States; (4) defining the role Federal agencies will play in developing and connecting with the electronic verification systems; (5) ensuring that individuals' privacy rights provided by the Federal Government and State governments are protected; (6) providing a means to correct inaccurate information held in the REAL ID networks; and (7) ensuring that the information contained in the license cannot be scanned or shared by private entities.

I hope that the regulations will be well thought out and reflect the stakeholder input provided to DHS over the past year and a half which included the issues I just raised.

However, given what I have heard from participants about the rule- making process thus far, I am concerned that the regulations are being developed by too few people without enough stakeholder engagement.

When DHS began this process, the State Working Group was developed to gather input from stakeholders. However, the engagement process was not as robust as it could have been. Participants in the working group never received feedback from DHS on their proposals and DHS never reconvened the group to evaluate a draft of the regulations.

I also am concerned that given the shortsightedness of the law DHS was given by Congress, it may be the case that a complete replacement of the REAL ID Act is necessary. I am looking to DHS to issue workable regulations. However, if our personal privacy is not protected and the burden placed on states is too great, a legislative change to REAL ID may prove necessary.

Congress established a negotiated rulemaking process to improve the security of drivers licenses and ID cards in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. According to participants, that process was making headway when the REAL ID Act passed repealing the negotiated rulemaking language and imposing much stricter guidelines.

Today Senator Sununu and I introduce the Identification Security Enhancement Act, which will repeal the REAL ID Act and reinstitute the shared rulemaking and more reasonable guidelines established in the Intelligence Reform Act. It is my intention to review the forthcoming DHS regulations before pursuing any action on our bill. I am hopeful that new legislation will not be necessary, and I look forward to working with DHS to produce workable guidelines. However, I believe that introducing the Identification Security Enhancement Act now is important because it will send a message that the intent of the entirety of Congress is not reflected in the REAL ID Act.

Congress has a responsibility to ensure that driver's licenses and ID cards issued in the United States are secure--both from would-be terrorists and identity thieves--affordable, and practical. I ask my colleagues to join us in injecting reality into the REAL ID Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I support reauthorization ONDCP and passage of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006. This bill recognizes and strengthens the Office of National Drug Control Policy as the lead agency in the fight against illegal drug use. It also includes important modifications and clarifications that will improve the lives of all Americans by reducing the presence of drugs in our society. I am very pleased that five of my recommendations to improve the bill are included in this legislation.

I commend Senator Biden, who has long been a leader in the fight against illegal drugs, and Chairman Specter, the lead sponsor of this legislation. The authorization for ONDCP expired 3 years ago, and it is long passed time for Congress to act. Illegal drug abuse, drug addiction, and drug-related violence continue to exact an enormous toll on our society. Nationwide, drug abuse kills 52,000 Americans each year, and more than 20,000 Americans will die as a direct consequence of illegal drug use this year alone. Drug abuse costs our society nearly $116 billion annually. It has strained the capacity of our criminal justice system and our medical facilities and brought violence and tragedy to families, schools, and communities throughout the country.

This bipartisan legislation will reauthorize ONDCP for 5 years and provide ONDCP with the necessary tools and resources to develop a national drug control policy and coordinate and oversee the implementation of that policy.

This legislation includes a number of reforms that provide clarification concerning the most significant objectives and duties of ONDCP. It allows Congress to be vigilant in our oversight by requiring the President to submit to Congress a yearly national drug control strategy, expanding ONDCP's reporting requirements to Congress on numerous areas of ONDCP responsibility; requiring ONDCP to give a full accounting of the budget; and requiring ONDCP to develop a new performance measurement system that includes 2-year and 5-year targets for each of the strategy's objectives.

In addition, this legislation improves essential information sharing by requiring that various Government agencies, including the Attorney General, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Agriculture and Defense, submit to ONDCP and Congress reports relating to their agencies' drug control efforts.

I want to take a moment and address several specific provisions. First, as a strong supporter of the National Guard, I am pleased that this legislation authorizes $30 million a year for the Chief of the National Guard to establish five National Guard Counterdrug Schools to train personnel from Federal agencies, State, and local law enforcement agencies, community-

based organizations, and other groups in drug interdiction and demand reduction activities.

I am pleased that this legislation will require greater diligence on methamphetamine. The bill calls for the creation of a National Methamphetamine Information Clearinghouse, an idea which I have long supported, including cosponsoring legislation to set up the clearinghouse. This toll-free number and Web-based source of information will promote sharing of ``best practices'' regarding law enforcement, prevention, treatment, environmental, social services, and other programs related to combating the scourge of methamphetamine.

I am pleased that this legislation embraces a comprehensive policy that reduces the demand, as well as supply, of drugs. It reduces the demand for drugs by ensuring that programs to expand access to drug treatment are adequately supported in the Federal drug control budget and by providing greater uniformity and accountability in assessing ONDCP's effectiveness in drug treatment programs. On the supply side, the bill takes steps to disrupt markets at home and abroad. It requires ONDCP to develop comprehensive strategies to address the severe threats posed by South American heroine and drug smuggling across the southwest border.

This legislation also includes a good provision by Senators Levin and Hatch that amends the Controlled Substances Act to raise the number of opioid addicted patients a physician may accept from 30 to 100. In the last 5 years, the number of heroin-related arrests and the number of people seeking treatment for heroin use in Vermont has more than doubled. This provision will expand treatment options for thousands of patients who have been denied access to critical addiction treatments in Vermont and across the country.

I am also pleased that the bill includes several of my recommended improvements. I continue to support the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, but I want to make sure that the campaign is run in a way that uses funds efficiently and gets out its antidrug message effectively. I therefore recommended inclusion of comprehensive standards for evaluating what type of media campaigns and information are effective, as well as a prohibition on the expenditure of antidrug media campaign funds for political purposes.

The campaign will be better for these changes, as well as the legislation's additional step of creating an independent agency to conduct annual evaluations of effectiveness. The bill also adopted my recommendation to eliminate two unnecessary provisions which could also hinder international diplomacy and drug control efforts.

I continue to have concerns about the safety and predictability of mycoherbicides against drug crops. While this bill only calls for a scientific study on the use of mycoherbicides, I am pleased that the bill includes my recommendation to prohibit testing in any foreign countries. I believe this provision will prevent souring diplomatic relations between the United States and countries around the world.

I am disappointed that my recommendations to remedy a few weaknesses in the bill were not adopted. Among other issues, I am concerned by provisions that prohibit the expenditure of more than 5 percent of the Federal funds appropriated for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Programs for drug prevention programs and that prohibit the use of any Federal HIDTA funds to establish new or expand existing drug treatment programs. The State, local, and Federal law enforcement officials in the HIDTA Program should have the discretion to use the programs that work best in their areas.

I am also troubled that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have not sufficiently addressed the international drug trade, particularly the rising instability in opium production in Afghanistan. Three months ago, the United Nations released a report concluding that opium cultivation is surging in the southern region of Afghanistan and warned that the southern region was verging on collapse. Just this past weekend, the Washington Post also reported that opium production in Afghanistan reached a historic high in 2006, despite ongoing eradication efforts. These reports are particularly troubling considering that this administration has increasingly described the drug trade as a problem that rivals the Taliban and threatens to derail the stability and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

While I applaud this bill's inclusion of a provision that requires the ONDCP to submit to Congress a comprehensive strategy that addresses the increased threat from Afghan heroin, I fear that this provision may not go far enough. Afghanistan provides more than 90 percent of the world's heroin. Without seeking accountability from the President, the State Department, and the Attorney General on the rise of Afghan heroin, we cannot sufficiently discharge our duty to address the international supply of heroin.

Nevertheless, I am confident that this legislation will strengthen ONDCP, its component programs, and our national comprehensive antidrug effort. This legislation balances the goals of drug enforcement and prevention, while providing Congress with additional oversight tools. I support its passage.

Mr. President, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, approximately 1 million people in the United States are addicted to heroin; more than 3 million individuals over the age of 12 have used heroin at least once; and an estimated 4.7 million people are dependent on or abusing other opiate drugs, including prescription painkillers according to a 2005 survey of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, DATA, which I authored along with Senators Hatch and Biden, makes a dramatic change in the way America fights heroin addiction. DATA permits, for the first time, FDA approved drug treatment medications to be prescribed and dispensed in an office-based setting under strict conditions by specially trained physicians. The medication in question is called buprenorphine--bup. It blocks the craving for heroin. This new law essentially brings the treatment of opiate dependence into the mainstream of medicine. It allows both primary care and addiction specialists to treat patients who want to get rid of their addiction, but are unable to because of distance or their unwillingness to seek medical treatment at centralized methadone clinics, where their appearance amounts to an announcement of their addiction.

This new law has brought tens of thousands of patients into treatment, who would never have sought treatment in methadone programs. Now in its fourth year, DATA has proved highly beneficial. The success of DATA in extending treatment has resulted in waiting lists for treatment with physicians who have signed up to treat addicts. Those physicians are currently limited to 30 patients.

The great success of buprenorphine has been borne out by firsthand accounts by physicians and addiction experts from across the country, as well as the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow and the director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Dr. H. Westley Clark, who participated in an August 3, 2006 Senate Symposium on DATA, which I sponsored along with Senator Orrin Hatch.

The legislation before us, S. 2560, which reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy, includes an important amendment to DATA that will more than triple the number of patients specially trained physicians may treat in their private offices. The across-the-board 30- patient limitation has resulted in denials of treatment and even deaths of patients who were not able to enter treatment because a physician had reached the 30-patient limit. For many such persons, their hope of treatment is dashed while they wait on a physician's waiting list.

In an effort to remedy this, the Senate Judiciary Committee's modification of DATA in section 1102 of S. 2560 addresses this problem by permitting physicians who have been certified to utilize buprenorphine in their office-based practice for at least one year, to notify the HHS Secretary of their intention to begin treating additional patients, in accordance with section 1102.

The bill with our amendment raises the number of patients who may be treated by an individual physician from 30 patients to 100 patients. This change--increasing the patient limit

from 30 to 100 per physician--is supported by the medical community at large as well as the addiction speciality associations, including: The American Medical Association, the American Osteopathic Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Addiction Medicine, The American Society of Addiction Medicine, The Association of American Medical Colleges, and several large health providers such as Kaiser Permanente.

In addition to establishing a process through which trained physicians can dispense or prescribe buprenorphine, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 required the Secretary of HHS to evaluate the impact of office-based buprenorphine treatment. In compliance with this requirement, the Secretary directed the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--SAMHSA--to conduct a survey to determine (1) the availability of the office-based treatment, (2) the effectiveness of the office-based treatment, and (3) the potential adverse public health consequences.

The preliminary findings of the HHS evaluation were presented and discussed during the August 3 Senate Symposium which I have previously mentioned. The HHS-SAMHSA evaluation showed that buprenorphine treatment is clinically effective and well-accepted by patients; the program has increased the availability of medication-assisted treatment; adverse effects have been minimal; and that the 30-patient limit established in DATA, as well as cost reimbursement issues decrease potential access to treatment under the program. The experiences articulated by the health care professionals who participated in the August 3rd Senate Symposium are reflective of the findings of the HHS-SAMHSA evaluation, which were presented by CSAT Director Dr. Westley Clark and that were echoed by NIDA Director Dr. Nora Volkow, based on her own expertise and observation of buprenorphine office-based treatment.

It is tragic if the personal and community benefits of this new anti- addiction medication, combined with treatment in the private office of certified physicians are limited because of artificial limits on its use. The legislation before us brings us close to full utilization. I am pleased that the Senate has adopted this life-changing, lifesaving legislation as part of the ONDCP reauthorization bill, as well as the free standing bill, S. 4115, which I introduced along with Senators Hatch, Biden and Collins.

In closing, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Senate the names of the distinguished physicians, addiction experts and agency officials who participated in the August 3, 2006, Symposium and Press Conference Senator Hatch and I hosted on the success of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, and the subsequent FDA approval of buprenorphine for the treatment of heroin addiction in 2002. Of particular note are Dr. Charles Schuster of Wayne State University, a past Director of NIDA who has conducted clinical trials with buprenorphine and who has been a great resource and guide on this issue from the very beginning and his advice and expertise continues today; and Dr. Herbert Kleeber, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University and one of the Nation's foremost experts on drug addiction and treatment, who provided invaluable assistance to me and to Senators Hatch and Biden in putting together this new system of office-based treatment utilizing buprenorphine. Dr. Nora Volkow's expertise and tutoring have led us all to a better understanding of the science of addiction. Dr. Volkow is the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse--NIDA--where buprenorphine was developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between NIDA and a private pharmaceutical company; Dr. H. Westley Clark, Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Dr. Clark has contributed great understanding of buprenorphine's therapeutic effects in the treatment of heroin abuse and dependence, and in understanding that drug addiction is a public health problem.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following brief remarks of two participants who experienced treatment with buprenorphine, Ms. Tess Walker and Mr. Odis Rivers, and the list of the August 3, 2006 DATA Symposium and Press Conference participants, be printed in the Record.